Consciousness and reflection in the basis of psychological theorizing

Abstract

In the article author proposed a basis, which was formed by two factors as organizing technological means of cogitative activity (the paradigmality and the nature of centrality of ideas about psyche). The basis allows us to systematize, to put in order psychological concepts, which were created in various methodological directions of psychology, to correlate them within frameworks of defined benchmarks. The locus of the centrality is considered by the author as one of the main factors that stimulates the transformation of paradigms through a change of views concerning the causality of mental phenomena. Three basic forms of rationality were considered: the classical, neoclassical and post-neoclassical paradigms; and four focuses of the centrality explanation concerning causes of mental phenomena, namely: organocentric, environmentalcentric, sociocentric and noncentric systems. The author has compared the content of concepts “consciousness” and “reflection” in dialectically oriented Soviet and cognitive psychologies, two approaches that have passed the way of transforming the paradigm from the classical “normal” science based on natural scientific principles to the post-neoclassical type of rationality (the primate of principles of humanities) through the intermediate link of the neoclassical paradigm. The article contains a detailed description of the first classical stage of psychological concepts development. Two main lines of development of understanding the concept “consciousness” were singled out: 1) from a resulting aspect of brain structures` functioning to the qualitative attribute of the subject’s activity (Soviet psychology); 2) from an isolated stage of processing information to the regulating and controlling means of functioning various parts of psyche (cognitive psychology). A formation of an internal mental space or an internal plan of action is a common stage in the development of ideas about consciousness in these scientific schools. The greatest differences between these two approaches are found in the dominant attitudes to the analysis of the secondary reflecting nature of consciousness in Soviet psychology and the secondary regulatory function of consciousness in cognitive science. The differences in understanding the place and role of reflection in the organization and realization a subject’s conscious activity were highlighted in the work. The following transformation of ideas about reflection is characteristic for Soviet psychology: “an attribute of consciousness – a mechanism of consciousness – a factor of consciousness development – an attribute of personality’s inner activity on a par with consciousness”. The way of transforming models of reflection within cognitive approach reflects the scheme: “the mode of consciousness functioning – the form of consciousness activity – the level of consciousness – the metastate of consciousness control.” The analysis proves an effectiveness of usage of bases as a foundation for methodological theorizing because they allow to optimize a systematization of a large amount of information on the selected criteria.